呋虫胺不同剂型对水稻二化螟的防效及蜘蛛消长的影响
|
摘要
[目的]探究呋虫胺不同剂型对水稻二化螟的防治效果及天敌蜘蛛的安全性,为呋虫胺在稻田的科学使用提供参考。[方法]以24%甲氧虫酰肼悬浮剂为对照药剂,采用叶面喷雾法与撒粒法研究呋虫胺可溶粒剂、水分散粒剂、可湿性粉剂、悬浮剂和颗粒剂5种剂型对水稻二化螟的田间防效,并考察其对蜘蛛消长的影响。[结果]呋虫胺不同剂型对水稻二化螟的防效存在较大差异,其中50%呋虫胺可溶粒剂、20%呋虫胺水分散粒剂90～150 g/hm~2和2%呋虫胺颗粒剂120～180 g/hm~2处理防治二化螟的保苗和杀虫效果分别为70.88%～90.27%和67.61%～95.66%,显著优于或近似于对照药剂24%甲氧虫酰肼悬浮剂40 g/hm~2处理; 25%呋虫胺可湿性粉剂和20%呋虫胺悬浮剂90～150 g/hm~2防治二化螟的保苗和杀虫效果分别为39.01%～78.38%和49.00%～80.83%,均低于或显著低于对照药剂24%甲氧虫酰肼悬浮剂40 g/hm~2。在相同使用剂量下,呋虫胺不同剂型对二化螟的防效表现为水分散粒剂≈可溶性粒剂>颗粒剂>可湿性粉剂≈悬浮剂。呋虫胺对稻田蜘蛛消长有一定影响,不同剂型对蜘蛛的杀伤率存在显著差异,其中可溶粒剂、水分散粒剂、可湿性粉剂和悬浮剂150 g/hm~2处理药后7 d对蜘蛛的杀伤率为27.59%～50.96%,药后14～21 d为42.50%～73.21%,药后28 d为43.48%～52. 69%,显著高于颗粒剂150～180 g/hm~2处理和对照药剂24%甲氧虫酰肼悬浮剂40 g/hm~2处理。[结论]用呋虫胺防治水稻二化螟时应优先选择水分散粒剂、可溶性粒剂和颗粒剂,其中对蜘蛛的安全性颗粒剂高于水分散粒剂和可溶性粒剂。
[Objective] The efficacies of different formulations of dinotefuran on Chilo suppressalis of rice and its safety to natural enemy spider were investigated in order to provide a reference for the scientific use of dinotefuran in paddy field. [Method]The field efficacies of dinotefuran soluble granule( SP),water dispersible granule( WDG),wettable powder( WP),suspension concentrates( SC) and granules( GR) on C. suppressalis and its effects on the growth and decline of spiders were investigated by foliar spray and granule application methods with methoxyfenozide 24% suspensions( SC) as the control pesticide.[Result]There was great difference among the efficacies of different formulations of dinotefuran on C. suppressalis of rice. The protecting seedling and insecticidal effects of dinotefuran 50% SG and 20% WDG at 90-150 g/hm~2,and 2%GR at 120-180 g/hm~2 on C. suppressalis were 70.88%-90.27% and 67.61%-95.66%,respectively,which were significantly better than or equivalent to that of the control pesticide methoxyfenozide 24% SC at 40 g/hm~2. The protecting seedling and insecticidal effects of dinotefuran25% WP and 20% SC at 90-150 g/hm~2 on C. suppressalis were 39.01%-78.38% and 49.00%-80.83% respectively,which were lower or significantly lower than that of the control pesticide of methoxyfenozide 24% SC at 40 g/hm~2. The efficacy of different formulations of dinotefuran on C. suppressalis was as follows: WDG ≈ SG > WP ≈ SC at the same dosage. Dinotefuran had a certain effect on the growth and decline of spiders in paddy fields,and there were significantly different between the killing rates of different formulations to spiders. The killing rates of SG,WDG,WP and SC at 150 g/hm~2 to spiders were 27.59%-50.96% 7 days after treatment,42. 50%-73.21% 14-21 days after treatment,43.48%-52.69% 28 days after treatment,respectively,which was significantly higher than those of GR at 150-180 g/hm~2 and the control pesticide methoxyfenozide 24% SC at 40 g/hm~2. [Conclusion]WDG,SG and GR should be selected as priority with dinotefuran against C.suppressali,and the safety of GR to the spiders was higher than that of WDG and SG.
[Objective] The efficacies of different formulations of dinotefuran on Chilo suppressalis of rice and its safety to natural enemy spider were investigated in order to provide a reference for the scientific use of dinotefuran in paddy field. [Method]The field efficacies of dinotefuran soluble granule( SP),water dispersible granule( WDG),wettable powder( WP),suspension concentrates( SC) and granules( GR) on C. suppressalis and its effects on the growth and decline of spiders were investigated by foliar spray and granule application methods with methoxyfenozide 24% suspensions( SC) as the control pesticide.[Result]There was great difference among the efficacies of different formulations of dinotefuran on C. suppressalis of rice. The protecting seedling and insecticidal effects of dinotefuran 50% SG and 20% WDG at 90-150 g/hm~2,and 2%GR at 120-180 g/hm~2 on C. suppressalis were 70.88%-90.27% and 67.61%-95.66%,respectively,which were significantly better than or equivalent to that of the control pesticide methoxyfenozide 24% SC at 40 g/hm~2. The protecting seedling and insecticidal effects of dinotefuran25% WP and 20% SC at 90-150 g/hm~2 on C. suppressalis were 39.01%-78.38% and 49.00%-80.83% respectively,which were lower or significantly lower than that of the control pesticide of methoxyfenozide 24% SC at 40 g/hm~2. The efficacy of different formulations of dinotefuran on C. suppressalis was as follows: WDG ≈ SG > WP ≈ SC at the same dosage. Dinotefuran had a certain effect on the growth and decline of spiders in paddy fields,and there were significantly different between the killing rates of different formulations to spiders. The killing rates of SG,WDG,WP and SC at 150 g/hm~2 to spiders were 27.59%-50.96% 7 days after treatment,42. 50%-73.21% 14-21 days after treatment,43.48%-52.69% 28 days after treatment,respectively,which was significantly higher than those of GR at 150-180 g/hm~2 and the control pesticide methoxyfenozide 24% SC at 40 g/hm~2. [Conclusion]WDG,SG and GR should be selected as priority with dinotefuran against C.suppressali,and the safety of GR to the spiders was higher than that of WDG and SG.
引文
[1]HUANG S W,WANG L,LIU L M,et al.Nonchemical pest control in China rice:A review[J].Agronomy for sustainable development,2014,34(2):275-291.
[2]朱建生,袁文龙,王梅和,等.江西临川二化螟历年发生特点与防治对策[J].江西植保,2003,26(2):73-76.
[3]李保同,张建中,吴建富,等.全程机械化生产对双季稻病虫草发生及产量的影响[J].农业工程学报,2013,29(19):71-78.
[4]贾华凑,盛仙俏,贾庆利,等.单季超级稻后期二化螟与稻飞虱兼治的效果[J].浙江农业科学,2018,59(4):593-594.
[5]陈罗湘,周尚泉,陈远贵,等.不同施肥处理对水稻病虫害及天敌发生的影响[J].作物研究,2006,22(6):330-334.
[6]赵丹丹,周丽琪,张帅,等.二化螟对双酰胺类杀虫剂的抗药性监测和交互抗性研究[J].中国水稻科学,2017,31(3):307-314.
[7]俞晓平,吕仲贤,陈建明,等.我国植物源农药的研究进展[J].浙江农业学报,2005,17(1):42-48.
[8]徐红星,郑许松,田俊策,等.我国水稻害虫绿色防控技术的研究进展与应用现状[J].植物保护学报,2017,44(6):925-939.
[9]杨亚军,徐红星,郑许松,等.中国水稻纵卷叶螟防控技术进展[J].植物保护学报,2015,42(5):691-701.
[10]张亦冰.新内吸杀虫剂——呋虫胺[J].世界农药,2003,25(5):46-47.
[11]汪爱娟,李阿根,张舟娜.呋虫胺等几种新药剂防治水稻稻飞虱与黑尾叶蝉药效试验[J].江西农业学报,2015,27(3):53-55.
[12]曾霞,倪珏萍,马亚芳,等.8个烟碱类杀虫剂生物活性比较研究[J].现代农药,2013,12(6):1-5.
[13]项庆奶,廖璇刚.呋虫胺对水稻二化螟的防治效果[J].浙江农业科学,2015,56(6):835-836.
[14]刘翠云,李国清,刘明贤,等.20%呋虫胺SG防治水稻二化螟田间药效试验[J].湖北植保,2016,28(5):19-20.
[15]农业部农药检定所生测室.农药田间药效试验准则(一)[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2000:1-5.
[16]李保同,裴春梅,石庆华,等.阿维菌素对二化螟和稻纵卷叶螟的生物活性及稻田天敌的影响[J].植物保护学报,2009,36(6):550-554.
[17]吕仲贤,俞晓平,HEONG K L.稻田氮肥施用量对黑肩绿盲蝽捕食功能的影响[J].昆虫学报,2005,48(1):48-56.
[18]刘其全,邱良妙,吴玮,等.11种稻田常用杀虫剂对拟环纹豹蛛的室内安全性评价[J].福建农业学报,2016,31(11):1226-1230.
[19]董涛海,章小根,姚张明,等.呋虫胺防治稻飞虱田间药效试验[J].浙江农业科学,2014,55(5):701-702.
[2]朱建生,袁文龙,王梅和,等.江西临川二化螟历年发生特点与防治对策[J].江西植保,2003,26(2):73-76.
[3]李保同,张建中,吴建富,等.全程机械化生产对双季稻病虫草发生及产量的影响[J].农业工程学报,2013,29(19):71-78.
[4]贾华凑,盛仙俏,贾庆利,等.单季超级稻后期二化螟与稻飞虱兼治的效果[J].浙江农业科学,2018,59(4):593-594.
[5]陈罗湘,周尚泉,陈远贵,等.不同施肥处理对水稻病虫害及天敌发生的影响[J].作物研究,2006,22(6):330-334.
[6]赵丹丹,周丽琪,张帅,等.二化螟对双酰胺类杀虫剂的抗药性监测和交互抗性研究[J].中国水稻科学,2017,31(3):307-314.
[7]俞晓平,吕仲贤,陈建明,等.我国植物源农药的研究进展[J].浙江农业学报,2005,17(1):42-48.
[8]徐红星,郑许松,田俊策,等.我国水稻害虫绿色防控技术的研究进展与应用现状[J].植物保护学报,2017,44(6):925-939.
[9]杨亚军,徐红星,郑许松,等.中国水稻纵卷叶螟防控技术进展[J].植物保护学报,2015,42(5):691-701.
[10]张亦冰.新内吸杀虫剂——呋虫胺[J].世界农药,2003,25(5):46-47.
[11]汪爱娟,李阿根,张舟娜.呋虫胺等几种新药剂防治水稻稻飞虱与黑尾叶蝉药效试验[J].江西农业学报,2015,27(3):53-55.
[12]曾霞,倪珏萍,马亚芳,等.8个烟碱类杀虫剂生物活性比较研究[J].现代农药,2013,12(6):1-5.
[13]项庆奶,廖璇刚.呋虫胺对水稻二化螟的防治效果[J].浙江农业科学,2015,56(6):835-836.
[14]刘翠云,李国清,刘明贤,等.20%呋虫胺SG防治水稻二化螟田间药效试验[J].湖北植保,2016,28(5):19-20.
[15]农业部农药检定所生测室.农药田间药效试验准则(一)[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2000:1-5.
[16]李保同,裴春梅,石庆华,等.阿维菌素对二化螟和稻纵卷叶螟的生物活性及稻田天敌的影响[J].植物保护学报,2009,36(6):550-554.
[17]吕仲贤,俞晓平,HEONG K L.稻田氮肥施用量对黑肩绿盲蝽捕食功能的影响[J].昆虫学报,2005,48(1):48-56.
[18]刘其全,邱良妙,吴玮,等.11种稻田常用杀虫剂对拟环纹豹蛛的室内安全性评价[J].福建农业学报,2016,31(11):1226-1230.
[19]董涛海,章小根,姚张明,等.呋虫胺防治稻飞虱田间药效试验[J].浙江农业科学,2014,55(5):701-702.